Saturday, 30 November 2013

Last week you created
a media storm with your speech
at the Centre for Policy Studies in London. As a self-publicist, you make Katie Price look like a case of social phobia,
and maybe you are pleased with the column inches you attracted. But perhaps you are also made nervous by the many
commentators who have suggested that you have damaged your chances of greater
political glory by letting the avuncular mask slip and revealing what lies behind
it.

As a eulogy for Margaret Thatcher, your speech was most
effective, though it came across as a transparent bid to take on her mantle. But it also revealed a blind spot in your
understanding of your fellow human beings. This is evidence in the two themes that run
through the speech: (1) people are motivated solely by competition with others;
(2) those who win competitions are morally superior and more deserving than
those who lose.

Let’s look at the evidence in the speech.The first comment that gave me pause was
this: “Of the 193 present members of the
UN, we have conquered or at least invaded 171 – that is 90 per cent.” This
is presented as if it is something to be proud of. As someone who’d like to
peaceably get on with my neighbours, I find it disturbing that a man who has
ambitions to lead our country sees domination of other nations as an admirable
goal.

You then go on to argue that as Britain’s empire waned, we
suffered from a “spiritual morosity that
bordered on self-loathing”. Not my memory
of the 1960s-70s. It was all rather jolly what with flower power and the sexual
revolution (all made possible through science and the advent of the pill). According to you, part of Thatcher’s greatness
was that she revived the nation and created “a buccaneering environment where there was no shame – quite the reverse
– in getting rich.” So instead of invading other countries and stealing
their resources, we could elbow our way ahead of others in our own country, and
feel smug about it at the same time. I do remember those days, which was exactly
when my own spiritual morosity set in. Encounters with various businesses –
utilities, banks, large shops, car hire firms, airlines – which had previously
been straightforward and uneventful became obstacle courses that you had now to
negotiate with extreme caution, because they were all trying to rip you off. You
needed to be on your guard, as the default assumption was that they’d try to
stitch you up and lock you in to the wrong kind of deal, with unnecessary
insurance to boot and nasty little charges added on at the last moment. Those
of a more recent generation may find this hard to believe, but you used to be
able to interact with any large-sized company on the assumption that they were
honest and cared about their reputation. The “buccaneering
environment” that Thatcher introduced delivered us into the hands of the
pirates. Which was a good thing if you were a pirate, but not much fun for everyone
else.

The part of your speech that has attracted most comment is
when you talked about IQ. Full marks for demonstrating an understanding of the
normal distribution, but less than full marks for the logic of your argument:

“Whatever you may
think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about
equality that as many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while
about 2 per cent have an IQ above 130. The harder you shake the pack, the
easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top.

And for one reason or
another – boardroom greed or, as I am assured, the natural and god-given talent
of boardroom inhabitants - the income gap between the top cornflakes and the
bottom cornflakes is getting wider than ever. I stress: I don’t believe that
economic equality is possible; indeed, some measure of inequality is essential
for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a
valuable spur to economic activity.”

It’s unclear how far you understand IQ – some people have
suggested you think it’s a measure of innate ability. But in a sense it doesn’t
matter whether you recognise it is
modifiable or not; the real problem is you confuse someone’s intellectual
abilities with their worth. You seem to be saying that bright people deserve to
succeed (and indeed we should give them knighthoods for their wealth generation
activity) – whereas at the same time you seem to accept that there are some individual
differences in ability. So are you saying that the less able people deserve to
be poor? The cornflake analogy you use is not entirely clear, but it seems to
amount to saying that you want to stimulate further inequalities between people
– and surely that means the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer?

What I find particularly chilling in your speech is the view
of human beings as motivated primarily by envy, greed, and the need to get to
the top, as well as the implication that if you don’t you are stupid. You seem unaware
that there are large numbers of people who are motivated by things like
interest in what they are doing (e.g. scientists), a desire to help others (e.g.
doctors, nurses, teachers or carers), or a creative urge (e.g. writers and
artists). When confronted with a banker whose annual income is fifty times as
much as average earnings, for many of us the feeling is not so much envy as
incomprehension. Why would anyone need all that money? Don’t they feel embarrassed
at having so much more than everyone else? Weren’t they taught that you care
for those less fortunate than yourself and that greed was a bad thing? Well,
clearly not, because, as you tell us, Thatcher changed the culture so that
there was “no shame – quite the reverse –
in getting rich.”

You don’t say what you think about the legions of people who
exist happily on moderate incomes, but the implication is that they are all
suckers, who’d be better off with a good dose of greed and envy. Indeed, you
imply they are parasitic on the rich, who create all this wealth by paying
massive amounts of tax. This is a good way to enrage a substantial part of the
electorate.

At least from time to time you give a nod of recognition of
the need for philanthrophy:

“But I also hope that
there is no return to that spirit of Loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively
riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless; and I hope that this time
the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed – valid motivator
thought greed may be for economic progress – as for what they give and do for
the rest of the population”

But, dear Boris, if you set up a system that rewards the
greedy, you can hardly expect them to change their ways and start being
philanthropic once they’ve made it. The main reason the very rich end up
commandeering all the resources is because they are never satisfied. Like you,
they are motivated by a sense of intense competition with everyone else. They
won’t think about whether their income is sufficient to live a comfortable
life; all they care about is having more money than everyone else. And people like that are not going to make
philanthropic donations; on the contrary they will avoid paying tax using any
means that is legally available to them. And you, by clapping them on the back for
their avarice, are just encouraging them.

I agree with you that capitalism and competition are
unlikely to disappear; they are an inherent part of our economic system. I also
agree that we cannot prevent inequality; the key question for politicians is
how best to manage it. According to you we should give greed and envy a free
rein because they have such good consequences. I disagree. I do not feel proud to be British
in a country that treats its most vulnerable citizens with contempt, and values
the qualities of competition, envy and greed over those of co-operation,
compassion and moderation.